Top Leaderboard, Site wide
November 25, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


A Soldier Among Chickenhawks




Joan of Arc


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Ear to the Ground

A Split in Kentucky, Oregon Primaries

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on May 20, 2008
Clinton and Obama
Flickr / seiu_international and Joe Crimmings Photography

As predicted, Hillary Clinton won Tuesday’s Kentucky primary by a huge margin while Barack Obama took the contest in Oregon with a substantial lead. Although Clinton scored another impressive victory, the Obama campaign says it now has a majority of the pledged delegates at stake, hinting that the race is effectively over.


CNN:

Despite Hillary Clinton’s landslide victory in Kentucky, Barack Obama has won a majority of pledged delegates in the race for the Democratic nomination.

Clinton won Kentucky by more than 30 points, but Obama’s share of the state’s 51 delegates was enough put him over the threshold, according to CNN estimates.

Obama is expected to pick up at least 14 delegates in Kentucky, and by CNN estimates, that will give him 1,627 of the 3,253 pledged delegates at stake in all of primaries and caucuses.

Obama will also pick up a win in Oregon, CNN projects, giving him the larger share of the state’s 52 delegates.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 24, 2008 at 7:39 am Link to this comment

Branding Obama with “Far-Left” anything is a troll and a lie.  Hillary herself has said many, many times on the campaign trail that Obama’s and her policies are nearly identical.  They’re not even listening to their own fucking messiah anymore.  They’re just making things up on the fly.

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 24, 2008 at 7:34 am Link to this comment

Typical Clintonista bullshit.  Hillary farts and you blame it on Obama.

I can’t think of a single thing you’ve written that I couldn’t subtsitute Hillary’s name for Obama’s into it, and your post would actually be closer to the truth.

Don’t you ever get tired of misrepresenting the facts?  Doesn’t the cognitive dissonance give you headaches?

Report this

By tres, May 22, 2008 at 6:54 pm Link to this comment

Yeah right. When Clinton, hopefully not, is the President, it is predictable. The country will go into the toilet.

Report this

By Aegrus, May 22, 2008 at 10:17 am Link to this comment

MI and FL won’t do anything, and the DNC is actively involved in finding a compromise for both states regarding delegates.

I live in Florida, and there is no political pressure here to have a re-vote. Very few people really think they were disenfranchised, and most Floridians have enough sense to see who the real culprits are. People like bert think we are pathetic little victims who need to be saved, and only Hillary can save us and ensure fair elections. Like the General Election will be fair here in Florida? Only the paper trail, which was part of the bill which moved forward our primary date, will provide the fairness during the GE. It’s not an entirely fair compromise, but I’m happy we have a paper trail.

Bert, stop speaking for my state. I was born and raised here, and I speak with enough people to get a good idea on what the real political atmosphere is.

Report this
Blackspeare's avatar

By Blackspeare, May 22, 2008 at 10:09 am Link to this comment

HRC’s campaign suffered from two errors; one strategic, the other tactical.  As for the strategic error it was believed by her campaign staff and advisers that BHO was a candidate in the shape of JFK in 1956——his time would come, but not now and he would lose support and falter much in the same fashion as JFK in ’56.

The tactical error and perhaps the more critical was portraying herself as the candidate of experience while a majority of the country’s electorate wanted change.  BHO picked-up on the mantle of change and the rest is history.

Report this

By Ostrogoth, May 22, 2008 at 9:57 am Link to this comment

Whether Florida and Michigan hold fair elections is up to FL and MI, not Obama. FL and MI were warned that the results would be invalidated if they held early elections, and that’s what happened. The DNC didn’t disenfranchise anyone. FL and MI disenfranchised Obama supporters, and both states have refused to pay for fair elections. Let the citizens of FL and MI pressure their legislatures to hold new primaries, or whatever. Obama did nothing wrong and shouldn’t have to pay for their idiocy.

You posted: “the only candidate who campaigned in both MI (radio ads telling his supporters to vote “uncommitted in MI)and FL (TV ads in FL)was Obama.”

Bert, what’s your source for that info, your memory? I haven’t heard or read it anywhere else.

You posted: “he voluntarily took his name off the ballot, as did Edwards, and both ran as Uncommitted. Uncommitted got, if memory serves, about 40% of the vote.”

If your memory serves? Haha. Whether or not your memory serves, counting results where Hilary was the only listed candidate amounts to stealing delegates. But hey, if that’s the only way Hilary can get the nomination, it’s OK, right?

Report this

By bert, May 22, 2008 at 7:15 am Link to this comment

“Obama’s name wasn’t even on the Michigan ballot.”

He was on as Uncommitted by HIS choice.


    “In effect, Florida and Michigan disenfranchised Obama voters.”

Obama was on as “Uncommutted” in MI and Obama was on the FL ballot, so no disenfrnachisment of the big-O.


    “Accepting the skewed results at this stage would effectively overrule the voters’ decision.”

You are comparing apples (votes) to oranges (delegates.)

MI and FL held legitimate elections certified by the Secretary of State. How is that over ruling the voter’s decision? THAT IS THE VOTER’S DECISION.

No matter what the DNC decides to do about DELEGATES from those two states, their raw vote totals should be included in vote counts. Now that is the true meaning of EVERY vote counts!!!!!

Stop holding the voters of MI and FL hostage to Obama’s and your political machinations.

Report this

By Aegrus, May 22, 2008 at 7:13 am Link to this comment

Propaganda and lies do not constitute fact in our “far-Left” agenda, Bert. I’m still offended by that implication.

Report this

By bert, May 22, 2008 at 7:00 am Link to this comment

“Since she (Donna Brazile) is an experienced party operative, ....”

This makes me feel relieved that the DNC is in good hands since she ran Al Gore’s campaign for President. Remind me again how well that turned out.

And she is not uncommitted. She is a strong Obama supporter, so get off it.

Report this

By bert, May 22, 2008 at 6:54 am Link to this comment

You did not answer the question, cyrena. You still did not deal with the issue of where is Obama going to get additional votes to win in November. YOU KEEP DUCKING THE ISSUE AND THE QUESTION. The coalition he has built to date will not yield a majority in November.

IF your goal is to have Democrats take back the White House, a winning coalition of voters is absolutely necessary.

You keep saying you want to win in November. But your continual ducking of that issue tells me you are more interested in getting Obama nominated than winning the White House.

Report this

By bert, May 22, 2008 at 6:43 am Link to this comment

“Whoa, am I the only one having trouble with the truthdig website? Takes me forever to log on, plus my posts sometimes don’t display or wind up in the wrong spot.”

No. You are not. TD has an outdated, old, and disfunctional posting system. They really need to update it. There are often broken links so that when you wnant to reply to one comment, it will not allow you to do so. Then comments get all out of order and things sometimes makes no sense.

    “Maani, in reply to your post, fairness, not the DNC rules, is the ultimate criterion.”

Oh!!! So now, after months of Obama supporters saying the ‘riles are the rules’ you now wnat to change the rules and claim that it is all about ‘fairness.’ Now who pray tells determines what is ‘fair?’ You keep shifting the goal posts.

    “The other candidates didn’t campaign in the early Michigan and Florida elections because the DNC warned that the results wouldn’t be counted.”

The only candidate who campaigned in both MI (radio ads telling his supporters to vote “uncommitted in MI)and FL (TV ads in FL)was Obama.

The DNC cannot tell a soverign state that their election and votes cast won’t count. What they can control is how or if they apprortion democratic delegates based on those state’s primary elections. And there are rules on that. And the dems changed their rules for the FL and MI primaries (even though other states moved their primaryies up and suffered no penalty i.e. SC.)

The voters when to the polls and voted in good faith and those votes were counted and certified by their respective state’s Secretary of State. So those are legitimate votes. The issue remains how are the delagates thus elected going to be handled by the DNC. That is where the issue and difference of opinion lies and will be debated right up to the convention.

    “Obama wasn’t even on the Michigan ballot.”

He voluntrily took his name off the ballot, as did Edwards, and both ran as Uncommitted. Uncommitted got, if memory serves, about 40% of the vote.


    “The solution is to hold fair elections with the participation of both candidates…..”

That I could live with. There have been several plans and ideas on how to do this. But so far, Obama has said no.

Report this

By bert, May 22, 2008 at 6:24 am Link to this comment

Exactly, Maani. GREAT post.

But what Ostrogoth is talking about is the NEW Democratic Party comprised of a NEW coalition that excludes half or more of the FDR coalition. This is the new post-partisan, post-racial (but not post-sexist)transcendent Obama style politics where the popular vote excludes and disses MI and FL in the primary but will covet and desire MI and FL votes in the General.

What is really sad is that the DNC and Obama supporters do not see how all of this will lead to their defeat in November. They truly believe that they can win in November with this strategy and with their convoluted delegate apportionment.

They also think they can win on the slogan that McCain would mean four more years of Bush. That works well with the Dem base in the primary. But I am not so sure it would work in the General. It may have the opposite effect. It may very well backfire on the Dems. Many conservatives don’t think McCain is conservative enough. So if the Dems say McCain would be a third term for Bush it may make him look good. The Dems may just be planning an election strategy that will play right into the hands of the Repubs and run ads that will make McCain look better and better to them. Leave it to the Dems. They self destruct more and faster than the tape at the beginning of the old TV program Mission Impossible. Which would be a pretty good slogan for an Obama candidacy as well.

Report this

By bert, May 22, 2008 at 6:05 am Link to this comment

The DNC Rules are the rules. Period. Now you want to change them. Typical Obama ploy. It is what he has been doing since day one. Make up the rules as he goes along and only rules, as he interprets them, should count. And change the rules as he goes along. This is typical of the Chicago corrupt, dirty style machine politics he was birthed in, cut his teeth in, and was a full blown member in good standing. If you like corrupt machine style politics in Chicago, wait till you see it applied nation wide. You will love it. Seems to fit your style.

Report this

By Aegrus, May 22, 2008 at 5:40 am Link to this comment

You’re not making any sense. No one’s rights have been violated, and the Obama campaign is CERTAINLY not actively advocating against counting the votes.

You’re misinformed and invalid opinions are just that.

Report this

By Ostrogoth, May 22, 2008 at 4:57 am Link to this comment

Whoa, am I the only one having trouble with the truthdig website? Takes me forever to log on, plus my posts sometimes don’t display or wind up in the wrong spot.

Maani, in reply to your post, fairness, not the DNC rules, is the ultimate criterion. The other candidates didn’t campaign in the early Michigan and Florida elections because the DNC warned that the results wouldn’t be counted. Obama wasn’t even on the Michigan ballot. The solution is to hold fair elections with the participation of both candidates or exclude the results. It’s up to Florida and Michigan, not the DNC, to hold fair elections, and Hilary knows it. Our current prez got into office after losing the popular vote. Hilary would like to do the same.

Report this

By Spike Wang, May 22, 2008 at 4:50 am Link to this comment

Hillary is strategical and composed politician. And will be the first powerful femal US president if she vs Mc.
US will turn to a new page instead of Obama and Mc.

you can see all Obama supporters is elder male and black people and college age.

I have no idea about why Obama could go so further??

I think US future need a politician like Hillary and no need sex discrimination and agitator or whatever.

Report this

By Heather™, May 22, 2008 at 4:08 am Link to this comment

You go Girl! Keep fighting Hillary despite the hate!

Report this

By Maani, May 21, 2008 at 8:39 pm Link to this comment

Ostrogoth:

“DNC rules should apply as long as they’re used to support the popular vote; not if they’re used to override the popular vote.”

Even were I to accept this, the question must be asked: What if that “popular vote” was ITSELF wrongfully skewed by “DNC rules” that ended up disenfranchising voters in two states?

Ultimately, that is what is happening: the “DNC rules” re the superdelegates are being applied to a popular vote that is fundamentally undemocratic due to “DNC rules” re the timing of the primaries.

I ask again: How can one simply ignore the primary vote of Florida and Michigan voters, and then talk about “supporting the popular vote?”  Indeed, how can one support the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan primary voters due to “DNC rules” over which they had zero control?

Unless those votes are counted - or in some fashion “re-voted” - the “popular vote” that the DNC superdelegate rules “apply” to has been arrived at by questionable, if not illegal, means.

Peace.

Report this

By cyrena, May 21, 2008 at 8:13 pm Link to this comment

Yeah bert…the POINT is that ALL THE REST OF US DO make up enough votes to win in November.

So the REAL issue involves ‘so-called’ democrats who black mail the rest of the party with threats to vote for McCain if Hillary isn’t the nominee.

THAT is the issue bert. And, the only ones who can fix that are the Clintons, because they are the ones who have thrown the party into this hysterical, no-logic emotional response from sore losers.

So, if Hillary really did give a shit about the country, and not herself, she’d get to it.

She hasn’t yet.

Report this

By Ostrogoth, May 21, 2008 at 7:43 pm Link to this comment

Whoops! The above post was a reply to bert’s 4:59 post. Sorry.

Report this

By Ostrogoth, May 21, 2008 at 7:38 pm Link to this comment

DNC rules should apply as long as they’re used to support the popular vote; not if they’re used to override the popular vote. The democratic process means you respect election results even if they don’t go your way. Pretty basic stuff, although many Republicans have never accepted the proposition. Maybe that’s what your problem is.

Report this

By cyrena, May 21, 2008 at 7:06 pm Link to this comment

From the article that bert posted, (I’m not sure in response to what).

The background is that Don Corizine from New Jersey, and the Baltimore, Orioles Owner, Angelos (among several other wealthy ‘Democrat” operatives) have offered to fund a ‘re-vote’ in MI. (nope, doesn’t say anything about FL). And, here’s the response from Obama’s supporters, though it doesn’t give us any clue to WHEN this concern was voiced.

•  “Barack Obama’s supporters in the state have raised questions about logistics and costs.”

Now I’m not so sure it matters when Obama’s supporters in MICHIGAN voiced these concerns about logistics and costs. For one thing, have a look at Don Corizine.(photo in the article) He’d scare me out of showing up at any polls looking like I might even consider voting for somebody OTHER than Hillary. (even if I had on bullet proof long underwear, three helmets, five oversized flack jackets, and got there on an armored skateboard.) So, that could be some of the logistical concerns.

Then of course there’s the money. How will you fund another vote says the Obama team? Well, at this point, just to get the mood right, visualize a cigar chomp, a lean-in leer, and a gravelly voice saying…”the Jersey boys have this covered son, and it’s an offer you can’t refuse.”

So, that takes care of that, eh?

Meantime, back out west, I think California should have a re-vote too. All of our absentee voters had already mailed in the ballots before Kucinich dropped out, and that just messed the whole thing up. If a six million of them had known that DK was gonna drop out, they would have voted for Obama.

Anybody else wanna re-vote? Don Corizine is picking up the tab. Don’t worry about him running out of money either. (even if New Jersey HAS been experiencing some financial difficulties of their own) They’ve got another 8 or 9 wealthy dems that’ll put up the money. And if they run out, there’s still more where that came from. Hillary’s got a dozen pallets of $100.00 bills in the basement. Just wait ‘til around 3:00am (her magic hour), and come through the back. Be sure to wear dark clothing.

See? No worries.

Report this

By bert, May 21, 2008 at 6:41 pm Link to this comment

By denotsKO, May 20 at 7:05 pm #

You write:
“Obviously uneducated white people (read: ignorant hillbillies) are blind to gender, if not race. I am from one of those areas where Clinton dominated, and it is a boobie prize in every sense of the word. Obama shouldn’t lose any sleep over the Uncle-Daddy inbred vote.”

Obviously you need to heed George Washington Carver’s advice:


“How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in your life you will have been all of these.”

Report this

By bert, May 21, 2008 at 6:36 pm Link to this comment

“It’s neither a good sign that HRC cannot win a clear majority from her own party.”

Exact same thing can be said about Obama, psmealey. Obama cannot close the deal and he has been outspending Hillary 2 and 3 to 1 in most states. Plus he has the momentum. He has the MSM ready to coronate him on a daily basis. What ever is the matter with him that he cannot wrap this nomination up? He can’t even win in the big states like CA, OH, PA, TX. Whatever is the matter? Pray do tell. I would love to hear the reasons.

Report this

By bert, May 21, 2008 at 6:15 pm Link to this comment

Obama was on the ballot in MI before he took his name off the ballot in MI. And Obama ran commercials with Rep. Conyers and his wife urging voters who wnated to voye for Obama to vote “Uncommitted.” “Uncommitted” came in second behind Clinton.

Obama also campaigned in FL by runnung TV ads.

And whether you like it ot not, and whether you want to admit it or not, voters voted in both MI and FL and those votes were counted and were certified by their respective Secretaries of State. So those are official votes.

And Clinton got those votes. So YES THEY CAN be added into her vote count no matter what the DNC decides to do about seating those state’s delegates. These are two seperate issues.

You cannot by edict on TD change that fact.

Report this

By bert, May 21, 2008 at 6:06 pm Link to this comment

Reply to cryena:  “...are you suggesting that the black vote and the college age vote DON’T MATTER? “

It is not that the AA and the young and the far-left votes don’t matter. Everyone’s vote matters. What the problem is these three constituencies do not make up a large enough block of voters to form a simple majority in order to be able to win in November. That is the issue. That is the conern.

Report this

By bert, May 21, 2008 at 5:59 pm Link to this comment

“It’s irrelevant why the superdelegate system was created. Using superdelegates, or invalidated delegates, to overturn Obama’s popular vote win is tantamount to stealing the nomination.”

Oh!!! So now the DNC rules do not apply? You only want the rules to apply when they benefit Obama. Or you want your interpretation of the rules to be heeded.

Nice try. Not going to work.

Report this

By cyrena, May 21, 2008 at 5:29 pm Link to this comment

Ya know what’s scary psmealey, she probably hasn’t had ANY! I mean, the Long Island Iced Teas would make for an excuse.

But this is the kind of weird stuff that only comes from the untreated psychotic.

When she started in on Obama being radical, extreme left, blah, blah, blah…I knew heather was in a whole all of her own. A world where wiser people dare not tread, for fear of being snared and trapped in the same insanity. So, we just get glimpses here, of how awful it really is. And, even the glimpses are enough to scare the shit out of me.

Report this

By Louise, May 21, 2008 at 4:49 pm Link to this comment

Oh my goodness, I have so enjoyed reading these posts!

Wisdom versus wackiness.
Smarts versus smudge.
Common sense versus caterwauling.
And of course, democrat versus repubs in blue drag.

I particular loved this one by bert ...

“Clinton offered to pay for a revote in both MI and FL and Obama declined.Gee, I wonder why.”

Oh my gosh! If that doesn’t say it all whatever will? Lets just settle this with money! Truly a laugh [or cry] moment ... wink

And something else rings out. There apparently are a lot of “conservative” feminists [a misnomer I realize] who thought Hillary was going to ride into the White House and dispatch men, particularly colored men off the planet. And now they’re mad!

I have said before I think Hillary was set up by the hard right, because they know their constituency will never vote for a woman. I have also said I think she made the mistake of believing her own hype. A mistake that led her to put to much faith in the wrong kind of supporters ... angry women, like Geraldine Ferrero. And negative campaigning, a real no-no in the party of the left. 

Now I’d like to add I feel the whole thing is getting very sad. Hillary is sincere, I think. But she came into this unprepared to stand toe-to-toe with real competition. Her supporters blame the competition [I guess that’s understandable] and now she’s valiantly hanging on, because she doesn’t want to go out looking like a quitter. She promised her “honest” supporters she would never be a quitter.

But getting back to that toe-to-toe thing, it should be apparent to anyone paying attention, she wasn’t prepared for it. So reality says she may not be prepared for the next round. Because just like the nomination for the party candidate turned out to NOT be a shoe-in, the general election wont be either.

And I’d like to add one other thought. I really have to give her credit for her tenacity. Especially given how many loose screws, with negative motives who give off bad vibes, have attached themselves to her campaign. She has got to be smart enough to realize that kind of heavy baggage could really weigh her down in a general election. It certainly has in this go-around.

Of course candidates want and need every vote they can get. But one has to wonder if sometimes, in the dead of night, they don’t wish some voters would just go away. Or at the very least ... shut up!

Report this
Mayponce's avatar

By Mayponce, May 21, 2008 at 4:13 pm Link to this comment

“Once again the extreme radical left will get their candidate nominated;”

What planet are you from? Have you ever taken even a basic course of political science? To infer that any of the Democratic nominees in recent history have been anywhere near ‘radical left’ in political ideology shows your complete ignorance of all reality.

Clinton and Obama are both right leaning centrists, and in reality there are no major differences in either of their platforms.

Both want to fellatio Israel, keep the drug war going, keep the CIA meddling in other country’s business, and give handouts to the health insurance lobby and the military industrial complex. Trust me, if either were a radical leftist, they wouldn’t be down with this kind of shit.

To infer either are leftists is to leave behind all common sense and enter into a la-la land only an uneducated American could dream up.

Report this

By Ostrogoth, May 21, 2008 at 4:06 pm Link to this comment

It’s irrelevant why the superdelegate system was created. Using superdelegates, or invalidated delegates, to overturn Obama’s popular vote win is tantamount to stealing the nomination.

Report this

By Ostrogoth, May 21, 2008 at 3:51 pm Link to this comment

WTF? Obama has already won by a margin of almost half a million votes, unless you count BOTH the Florida and Michigan results, which is just another way of attempting to steal the nomination, since Obama didn’t campaign in either state and wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan. Please don’t post deliberately deceptive vote counts, thanks.

See the exact figures at the Real Clear Politics website: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Report this

By Aegrus, May 21, 2008 at 3:10 pm Link to this comment

The Far-Left! Yeah, I love that quote about Obama being the most liberal member of the Senate. Who is Bernie Sanders? haha!

Bert, you continue on your crusade to bring the Democrats closer to the Republicans. Wish you a lot of luck with that endeavor, but don’t hold your breath. This country is going back on track, and that track is going way off course from the neo-conservative Bushies.

You won’t stop it.

Report this

By Aegrus, May 21, 2008 at 3:06 pm Link to this comment

He’s not going to play in the sewer with John McCain either, but he has been heavily restrained. Obama hasn’t even declared victory yet, or even really been campaigning against Hillary the past two weeks. Still, gaps close, and he won by an even larger percent of the vote in Oregon than expected.

Johnny Boy has a lot of skeletons in his closet, and the media hasn’t even tried to say anything negative about the man yet. Sit back and watch, because it will be an 80s style slasher flick against McCain’s campaign. Kevin Bacon might make an appearance. haha };>

Report this

By cyrena, May 21, 2008 at 1:57 pm Link to this comment

troublesum,

how can he not have a clue about what the REST of the republicans have in store for him? Hillary’s campaign has already put him through a rigorous boot camp.

Even the repuglicans know they’re on very shakey ground come November. And, despite all that they can possibly make up, they’ve pretty much exhausted that already.

And, Obama has said this before, and anyone who’s been around as long as you have should know this…Obama’s campaign has been RESTRAINED. If he wanted to play the sewer back against Hillary, he could have. He didn’t.

You can’t honestly believe that the other repugs WOULDN’T do it, if Hillary wound up as the target.

My god, my god…it would be so brutal even I would feel the pain, and even I wouldn’t wanna see Hillary go through that, despite the fact that she’s brought it on herself.

Needless to say, it would destroy the dems, and any chances we might have to survive the total destruction of a once democratic society.

Report this

By troublesum, May 21, 2008 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

You mean that when they see the “Change We Can Believe In” signs republicans will run and hide?

Report this

By cyrena, May 21, 2008 at 1:47 pm Link to this comment

•  ….if you actually take a look a the district maps, you will see that Obama received the overwhelming majority of his votes from (i) cities with large black populations, and (ii) cities or towns with large college campuses. …

Well Maani, I guess we could look at this a couple of ways, if one wanted to be generous enough to go through the exercise….

I guess what you’re saying here is that Obama only won because of black people and college kids, which on it’s face is stupid. How many black folks and colleges are in Iowa? Wyoming? Vermont? (I could go on)

On the other hand, even if that were true, which is ridiculous as well, because the black population of the US is 13% and less than half of that 13% vote, are you suggesting that the black vote and the college age vote DON’T MATTER? And so in THAT case, (if they’re black or college aged voters) then the super delegates should just feel free to vote for whomever they want, because those black folks and those college aged voters don’t know how to choose what’s right for them anyway?

Yeah, I thought that’s what you mean

Report this

By Aegrus, May 21, 2008 at 1:33 pm Link to this comment

trouble, I’ll have to say this vaguely, so excuse the verbabe, but the Republicans have no idea what Obama will have for them in the GE.

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 21, 2008 at 1:30 pm Link to this comment

Have fun playing with your strawman, but don’t forget to take off your blinders first.

In the meantime, at least get your facts straight.

Donna Brazille on CNN stated that they do not need ‘working americans and Hispanics to win’

Donna Brazile is an uncommitted superdelegate who has refused to support either Obama or Clinton.  What she was talking about was electoral math, not bias.  Since she is an experienced party operative, I imagine she’ll support Obama when it becomes official.  That said, she has not be very complimentary to the Obama campaign all season long.

along with the vitriol coming from them why I will not support Obama in November.

Only you can say why you only see “vitriol”  (for the love of God people, buy a thesaurus… at least try something new like acerbic, caustic, corrosive, pejorative, etc.) from Obama supporters, yet fail utterly in seeing the more overt flavor coming from Clinton devotees.  I suspect it’s the same reason why Clinton accuses Obama’s people of bias less than a week after the “hardworking Americans, white Americans” dogwhistle racism.

I suspect that you are being somewhat less than honest.

A fair and intelligent person first finds fault with himself before accusing others.

Report this

By Guffy, May 21, 2008 at 1:10 pm Link to this comment

In true Hillary fashion, Heather has managed to drag Obama supporters down into the mud where everything is personal.  Folks, lets rise above it and stick to the issues.  Honestly, calling each other names doesn’t solve the problems this country faces.

Report this

By Guffy, May 21, 2008 at 1:03 pm Link to this comment

Bert,

Is your goal to constantly one-up people?  I am glad you can be a bully on the internet.  You’re tough and don’t let anyone tell you differently!

Report this

By Maani, May 21, 2008 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment

One thing that is being overlooked is that in many states where Hillary won but Obama did okay (e.g., Pennsylvania), and even in states where Obama won and Hillary did okay (e.g., Missouri), if you actually take a look a the district maps, you will see that Obama received the overwhelming majority of his votes from (i) cities with large black populations, and (ii) cities or towns with large college campuses.  In fact, in Missouri (where Obama won by a single percentage point), Hillary actually won 108 out of 116 district, while Obama only won 6 (the other were a statistical tie).  Here are some examples (Clinton is in light blue, Obama in dark blue; scroll down for district maps):

Missouri
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#MO

Kentucky
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#KY

West Virginia
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#WV

Pennsylvania
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#PA

Ohio
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#OH

New York
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#NY

Texas:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#TX

Indiana:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#IN

This is a mixture of “blue” states and “red” states.  Yet the district-by-district numbers show that Hillary does better than Obama in both.

As I have repeated ad nauseam, the superdelegate system was NOT created simply to “ratify the math” of either pledged delegates or popular vote, though those are obviously important.  The system was created to consider OTHER factors as well - particularly when a race is as close as this one has been.  In this regard, if the superdelegates end up functioning ONLY to ratify the math, they will NOT be upholding the function for which they were created.  This does not mean that they SHOULD choose Hillary over Obama.  Just that they should be looking at many more factors than simply “the math.”

Peace.

Report this

By troublesum, May 21, 2008 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment

I have to disagree on your final point.  He doesn’t seem to have a clue about what republicans have in store for him.

Report this

By Aegrus, May 21, 2008 at 12:04 pm Link to this comment

troublesum, do keep in mind the states of Kentucky and West Virginia aren’t accurately defined as racist states. It should also be taken into context what media markets get major distribution within that area.

There is never a single factor governing all events and consequences, so let’s not belittle the issue of these hardworking Americans by dismissing the entire group as ‘ignorant racists.’ I don’t think it’s very productive.

Also, it is very wrong to say with every win Hillary has, people ask her to drop out. I would suggest blocking out the tv punditry from your information sources because they follow presidential campaigns like horse races, and it’s just beyond any sensible or legitimate reasoning what they say.

I’ll continue to say Hillary Clinton has every right to stay in this presidential race. It’s ultra-frustrating to read, hear and speak with her fanbase, but no one can deny both Hillary and Obama have sparked fervent support with Democrats new and old. The energy is remarkable.

What is a mistake, however, is assuming Hillary has any better preparation for Republican attacks. It’s just foolish to assume there is any merit to that idea.

Report this

By troublesum, May 21, 2008 at 11:48 am Link to this comment

How many more primaries will Clinton have to win before she loses the nomination?  When she wins by a small margin it isn’t enough and when she wins by a landslide it’s only because all the voters in that state happen to be ignorant racists.  Every time she wins the pundits say it’s time for her to drop out.
Any objective person can see that the race is a tie as far as the popular vote goes, but Clinton may be slightly ahead.  Delegates can go to the convention and vote for whomever they please.  The race is not over just because the talking heads on tv are impatient for a candidate.  I was not enthusiastic for Obama or Clinton to begin with, but seeing what has been going on in the last month or so makes me wonder what the hell is going on that they keep telling Clinton to get out.  She is more prepared for the republican attack machine than Obama will ever be.

Report this

By ib hernandez, May 21, 2008 at 11:44 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It is the utter silliness of these posts, along with the vitriol coming from them why I will not support Obama in November.

Yes, he is the party nominee, however he can not win the election without Hillary’s supporters in the fall.  This includes all working americans (who hopefully will still have a job), women over 50 and Hispanics.

The racism coming from some Obama supporters in unbelievable -  I guess it makes it OK, if it comes from an African American - Donna Brazille on CNN stated that they do not need ‘working americans and Hispanics to win’

Good now go win the general with out us.

Report this

By David McGhee Jr., May 21, 2008 at 10:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Huh? Please if you’re going to comment either in the negative or the positive, please make some sense.

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 21, 2008 at 9:43 am Link to this comment

One thing that hasn’t come up in all of the endless polling that’s been done in the past month is how many of the “hardworking Americans, white Americans” that turned out in droves to vote for Hillary in Ky and W.Va. would actually vote for her over McCain.  I don’t attribute this to Rx Limbaugh’s “Operation Chaos”, but really to more “traditional southern democrats” that were too lazy to register as republicans and were motivated/inspired to vote against the black guy.

Is there any doubt that, come November, they would not vote for the rich white woman who has been demonized by the Religious Right for two decades over the War Hero™ from Arizona?

This is where Clinton campaign logic falls in on itself.  She’s run up the score in KY and W.Va with some pretty naked pandering to some very insidious human tendencies, but why wouldn’t the same backfire on her in the general election?  It’s hard to believe that it won’t.

Report this

By Aegrus, May 21, 2008 at 9:38 am Link to this comment

While both of you are better than the average Clinton supporter, it is still really aggravating how your camp continues to mess around with math, parrot Fox News and bash, shamefully, everyone who is far more informed and knowledgeable than yourselves.

The bringing in of “hard-left” bullshit is something I cannot believe when I read. Not only is Barack anything but ‘hard-Left,’ but the whole point of this election is to distance our country from the WRONG PATH of Hard-Right Corporate Fascism. You act like there is something inherently wrong with the Left-Wing political thought, which keeps your rights as Americans and enables our country to enjoy economic prosperity without the bogged down wars of profit and dominion over the rest of the world.

What the hell has gotten into the Clinton Camp?

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 21, 2008 at 9:36 am Link to this comment

Not that anyone’s counting, but how many Long Island Iced Teas have you actually had this morning?

Report this

By Heather™, May 21, 2008 at 9:01 am Link to this comment

Heehee

Yeah baby all you Obama baiters keep the hate and insults flowing, most likely you guys were graduates of reform school please keep the hateful posts of they will make great fodder for the psychiatric community, hey maybe all your hate speech may one day contribute to an eradication of your disease of insanity/hate meanwhile I will amuse myself at your bizarre behavior.

Your postings remind me of a cute little puppy chasing its tail the only difference between you and the puppy is that the puppy grew up and matured into a mature intelligent obedient dog. You Obama supporters evolved into spritely little mischief making gremlins wreaking havoc just like in the movie of the same name with Phoebe Cates.

Have your fun little gremlins, the clock is ticking on your mischief making tick~*~tock~*~tick~*~tock

Report this

By Ostrogoth, May 21, 2008 at 8:57 am Link to this comment

Another typical post where you twist the truth beyond all recognition. Hilary’s sleazy attempts to steal the Democratic Party nomination from the rightful winner is analogous in many respects to Wanker’s theft of the 2000 elections; a perversion of justice that led to the most dangerous, fascistic regime in US history. Obama didn’t campaign in either Michigan or Florida because the DNC warned both states that the results would be invalidated if they proceeded with early elections. Everyone knew the rules. Obama’s name wasn’t even on the Michigan ballot. In effect, Florida and Michigan disenfranchised Obama voters. Accepting the skewed results at this stage would effectively overrule the voters’ decision.

If Michigan and Florida want to be represented at the convention, let them hold fair elections. I’ll respect the results. Otherwise, try a different angle, bert.

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 21, 2008 at 8:43 am Link to this comment

It’s neither a good sign that HRC cannot win a clear majority from her own party.  How many Republicans are going to cross the line to cast a vote for Hillary? 

Look, this race was Hillary’s to win, and she blew it.  She couldn’t connect with enough left-leaning voters to gather either a coalition or a mandate, and ran a terrible campaign.  That last part should be educational to those who claim that she’s ready to be President.  A national campaign is complicated, but quite a bit less involved than an entire Administration.  If she can’t do that effectively, what kind of President would she be?

Obama, for all his inexperience, has executed a fantastic national campaign, with tight finances and reached out to entirely new segments of voters.

If you really cannot summon the ideas of why he generates so much enthusiasm, look no further than that.  The guy can flat out run a complicated organization and give nuanced and clear answers to complicated questions WITHOUT PANDERING, and brings some pretty serious and much needed energy.

Report this

By bert, May 21, 2008 at 8:00 am Link to this comment

Problem with that line of thought is that there are just so many more of those pesky “uneducated white people and old women.” The candidate who wants to win will NEED those voters to get a majority of votes in November.  Sorry, but you can’t win without us. That is why it is not a real good idea to STEREOTYPE us. It is as offensive to us as being called a racial epithet. So try not to so overtly piss us educated and Master Degreed old white women off so much.

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 21, 2008 at 7:57 am Link to this comment

Whatever you think of the fairness of the proceedings is irrelevant, everyone played by the same rules.  Party Nominations are done according to internal party rules, not by some method to serve HRC’s interests months downstream.

Hillary was in the room when the DNC decided to strip MI and FL of their delegates, and agreed with the decision along with everyone else.  It’s only now, months later, that it’s in her interest to do so, that she’s decide to push to change the rules.

Ask yourself, who’s being more Bush-like.  All the other nominees who agreed with Party rules, or Hillary, who’s trying to gain advantage through legal machinations.

Report this

By bert, May 21, 2008 at 7:53 am Link to this comment

Your post is factually inaccurate. Clinton offered to pay for a revote in both MI and FL and Obama declined.Gee, I wonder why. NOT

Report this

By bert, May 21, 2008 at 7:49 am Link to this comment

“Obama will annihilate McCain in the fall.”

I will enjoy watching you try to explain this on November 6, 2008 when McCain is President-elect and Obama set a new record in Presidential elections- losing all 50 states. Obama will join the pantheon of far left wing, out of touch with mainstream Americans like Stevenson, McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry.

You are the kool aod drinker and a blind one at that.

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 21, 2008 at 7:47 am Link to this comment

That’s ok.  Hillary’s weakness has already been exposed: she can’t win the nomination of her own party.

Report this

By bert, May 21, 2008 at 7:41 am Link to this comment

“...a Democratic Party equivalent of the Bush putsch in 2000,”

Yes, the DNC has not counted ALL the votes and are doing exactly what they comdemned the Republicans for in 2000. Until all the votes are counted Obama cannot claim a lrgitimate victory.

And don’t start mouthing all that crap about delegates. Yes, the DNC decided to strip MI and FL of their DELEGATES. They did not strip them of their VOTES. American citizens voted and those votes were tabulated and their votes were certified by the respective states Secretary’s of State.

Whether you like it or not or acknowledge it or not, Hillary clearly has received the majority of votes in this campaign.  You wrote: “If she had won a majority of votes I would respect her win.” Well she did and she deserves your respect - unless of course you realy don’t believe your own words.

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 21, 2008 at 7:35 am Link to this comment

OK

Report this

By bert, May 21, 2008 at 7:30 am Link to this comment

“...the majority, not the minority, rules, unless minority rights are being violated.”

The ‘minority’ of MI and FL voters and their rights are being violated by the DNC and Obama supporters.

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 21, 2008 at 7:25 am Link to this comment

Great post, cyrena.  I actually haven’t seen a post like Heather’s since the last (and only) time I checked out FreeRepublic or LittleGreenFootballs four years ago.

That is one seriously unhinged person. 

For what it’s worth Heather is only representative of herself.  Her views do not represent the mainstream of those who support HRC or even John McCain.

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 21, 2008 at 7:20 am Link to this comment

Heather,

Those voices in your head are not other people.

Please get help.

Best,
psmealey

Report this

By Ostrogoth, May 21, 2008 at 7:07 am Link to this comment

It’s over, Heather TradeMark. Show a little decency and accept it. Last time I looked, the majority, not the minority, rules, unless minority rights are being violated. Perhaps you think that Hilary has a right to the nomination, regardless of what the majority wants? #### off, together with the rest of the neocons and fascists. I know that’s not very conciliatory language, but we all suffer when losers like Wanker and Hilary refuse to accept defeat.

Report this

By cyrena, May 21, 2008 at 6:58 am Link to this comment

Thanks for the post Felicity.

You know something jumped out at me in the first sentence when you mentioned David Gergen.

I specifically remember from what I believe was the very first Democratic debate, (wow, doesn’t that seem like light years ago?) when John Edwards said this very same thing, but included the issue of gender.

He said it specifically and forcefully, that if anybody chose not to vote for Hillary because she was a woman, or for Barack because he was black, then HE DIDN’T WANT THEIR VOTE!!

I remember being very impressed with him for that.

And I believe it’s true that only the Clintons can fix this divide, (because they’ve caused it) and it makes me absolutely sick that they’ve done that, because I feel overwhelmingly betrayed by both of them.

I suspect that a large portion of the black populace feels the same way. But, not just black folks. ANY American who is desperate to get our country back from the highjackers HAS to feel betrayed that the Clinton’s would be willing to lose it all, just because they can’t have it.

Report this

By Ostrogoth, May 21, 2008 at 6:55 am Link to this comment

Cyrena, I’m glad I live in a state like Oregon, where race and gender are non-issues. Obama swept the state, and Hilary got zero traction, based on their records. That doesn’t mean Obama will get the racist, yahoo vote in the general elections, or that the fascists will play by the rules, but he won the Democratic Party nomination by the book, and we’re not going to let those ####s steal that from us. Let the racists choose Mad Dog in November, along with permanent war and permanent poverty.

Report this

By felicity, May 21, 2008 at 6:31 am Link to this comment

Last night David Gergen called on Hillary to tell her supporters that if they were not voting for Obama because he is black, then she doesn’t want their votes either. (That’ll be the day, I said to myself.)

He said that this nominating nightmare has turned into a contest between ‘white’ and ‘black’, a situation that has the potential of setting back the civil rights movement by many years, and as such it’s got to be stopped.

He implied that Hillary and her husband must be held responsible for lighting the fuse that ignited the always smoldering fire of racial divide.  They, and only they can put that fire out.

(I have read that Bill and Hillary’s remarks around race only register as such with racists.  In other words, racists get them as white vs black.  To non-racists, they seem pretty harmless.)

Report this

By cyrena, May 21, 2008 at 6:28 am Link to this comment

From Heather, the trademark of what we do not know. This is the person who is tired of all the ‘hate’ comments directed against Rodham and her ‘supporters’. She’s the one that will defend with her life, you’re right to speak your own option. UHMHUMM that’s what she claims…
And then, she writes this.. (psmealey, I don’t know why she targeted you, since it’s pretty obvious that we ALL think she’s nuts).


By Heather™, May 21 at 3:32 am #
Re: Re: I honestly was hoping Hillary
psmealey,

You are the one that is a comedian if you think that being pro abortion on demand is not radical left.
Do your homework instead of acting like the village idiot.

Where did Obama go to make his idiotic “cling to their guns and religion” speech? Dahhhhh San Francisco home of left wing radical buffoons like you that get off on all that Karl Marx elitist crap you radicals love. He could not say that garbage in mainstream America. Why because it is radical left wing garbage moron.

One more thing, I suppose the left wing crazies he associates with, Pastor Wright, Ayres and Dhorn aren’t left wing radicals?

Do me a favor psmealey kindly keep your pyscho radical chauvinistic misogynistic self away from me please. Do something useful and find a classroom and sit in a mini desk with a “lefty” dunce cap on your head.
**************
Whew, quite a finger full for the one who’s so troubled by name calling and willing to defend someone else’s right to their own opinion.

Get a diagnosis heather. I’m guessing either short-cycle bipolar, or schizophrenia, or some other non-specific of the delusional class.

But heather, you don’t have to suffer this way. These things can be treated, even though there is no cure. Get to a doc, and follow his or her advice.
You’ve got serious troubles trademark, and you’re really beginning to piss folks off, because we are strangers to you, and less likely than families members to put up with your shit.

Report this

By Aegrus, May 21, 2008 at 5:46 am Link to this comment

You don’t even know what Left-Wing politics are, Heather.

You’re looking at a law, and not the reason behind the law. It’s pragmatic, effective political policy. You’re a dittohead.

Report this

By Aegrus, May 21, 2008 at 5:45 am Link to this comment

So, how much does Sean Hannity pay you to do these posts, or are you just stuck on Fox News for talking points?

Obama will annihilate McCain in the fall. Anyone who thinks otherwise is drinking Kool-Aide. Please don’t pay any attention to the damned polls between McCain and anyone because the General Election has yet to commence. We’re just battle-training now.

John McCain is a lie.

Report this

By Aegrus, May 21, 2008 at 5:41 am Link to this comment

You Clintonistas are completely bonkers. I hear people calling for Barack Obama to quit from your camp! People whining about the media not being fair. Well, glad you just noticed because there are others amongst you who have been fighting media bias for a long time.

I still refuse to call for Hillary Clinton to drop out of the race. This is a Democratic-Republic. However, you nutjobs who still think she has a ice cube’s chance in hell to win, should really consider your actions.

Everyone is tired as hell of the remarks about not voting or voting for McCain because Hillary isn’t going to win. I’m sick of all the stupidity and emotional surplus. Grow up. This isn’t kindergarten. You can’t call on a teacher to stop people from expressing their opinions about your candidate.

Report this

By Heather™, May 21, 2008 at 4:59 am Link to this comment

I see all these hateful posts against Hillary and those that support her. I don’t get upset at your vulgar replies to my posts

•Because unlike Obama supporters I am not consummed with hate.

•Hate is a wasted emotion and I refuse to waste my time bashing people

•I know I am correct in my assessments and time will vindicate me correct.

So Obama supporters by posting all your hateful posts bashing alternative viewpoints you are blowing in the wind.

Obviously

“I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend with my life your right to say it”

means nothing to them…how could it, they are too busy being consumed by the hatred they have for others.

Report this

By Spike Wang, May 21, 2008 at 4:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I do not like Obama. politics need stable progress and cannot be changed poignant.

Hillary has all characters of a excellent politician who has to have.

Obama is a dialectician, that will be very dangrous in actual politics operating.

I will be fearful when Obama being USA president.

That means the future is unknown and can not be forecasted!

Report this

By cyrena, May 21, 2008 at 4:34 am Link to this comment

•  “Hilary can win the nomination only by getting the DNC or superdelegates to override the voters’ choice: a Democratic Party equivalent of the Bush putsch in 2000, with results that would be every bit as catastrophic for our country. Hilary and her supporters now must choose between doing the right thing for their country or continuing to feed their insatiable egos.”

Great post Osgoth, and I have some thoughts…some are optimistic, others not.

First, I don’t believe for a moment that Hillary is going to ‘do the right thing.’ I would LIKE for her to, and not JUST for us as a nation and as a party, but for herself as well. Not gonna happen though…This from the piece that I posted earlier…

•  “ But Clinton vowed to continue the fight through the last primaries in early June, “even in the face of some pretty tough odds.” …  “This is one of the closest races for a party’s nominations in modern history,” Clinton told cheering supporters in Louisville. “We’re winning the popular vote, and I’m more determined than ever to see that every vote is cast and every ballot is counted.”

Now, I read somewhere yesterday, this very same claim of hers, that she was winning the ‘popular vote’ and I thought maybe I was just really tired or something. But then today, I read the explanation of how she was making this claim….BY ONLY COUNTING STATES WITH PRIMARY CONTESTS, AND NOT THE CAUCAS STATES!

•  ““For Clinton to claim such a lead, primary states but not caucus states—which Obama mostly won—would only be counted, plus the popular vote totals in Florida and Michigan.”

Then she says this:

•  ““The states I’ve won total 300 electoral votes. If we had the same rules as the Republicans, I would be nominee right now,” she said. “We have different rules, so what we’ve got to figure out is who can win 270 electoral votes. My opponent has won states totaling 217 electoral votes.”

You say, NO SHE DIDN’T! (say that). Yep…she did. (insert my shock, awe, jaw drop) If we had the SAME RULES AS THE REPUGLICANS???

No she didn’t. Yes she did. Do you suppose it was a Freudian slip, since she’s always been far more repug then democrat anyway? I don’t know.
But, as my dad would say, “If *IF* was a *STIFF*, it would have been buried.

So no, she’s NOT going to go down graciously, or with any measure of class, and so the job that she SHOULD be doing, (if she really did care about her country, or her party) by bringing her supporters on line with the rest of us, is not going to be.
So, we’ll simply have to bury her, and continue the onward march. It’s like she’s done her best to turn us into a party with an autoimmune disorder. Our own body’s cells attacking each other.

But, I don’t think that much of it is the ego or the cutting off ones nose to spite ones face mindset that we see so much here on this blog. For those in places like Kentucky and W.VA, it’s just racism resultant from ignorance.

It’s true what James said in noting that educated white people were voting for Obama, when the ‘others’ were not. It’s the education that makes a difference, whether people want to accept that or not. People in rural areas that rarely mix with the rest of modern day society are still stuck way back in some other mindset.

For those who ARE educated,(and still hold their breaths and stamp their feet, and try to blackmail us) it’s just plain old racism at its core, with no other plausible excuse. And, we knew that would always be a problem, but life goes on, for those capable of intelligent thought and self-survival.

In the ‘suvival of the fittest’ model, even the dummies survive by the actions of those of us who can think.

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 21, 2008 at 4:09 am Link to this comment

Hillary ran as a populist/champion of regular folks only AFTER she lost 14 states in a row.  If we know more about Obama know, we apparently know less about Hillary.

She changes political orientations and platforms like the weather.

It wouldn’t suprise me if, after another 9/11 style attack in her first term as President, she switched to the GOP.

Honestly, she hasn’t that far to go if she were to switch now.

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 21, 2008 at 4:03 am Link to this comment

Of course, if the Democrats used winner take all, Clinton would already be the nominee…and she wouldn’t be the firebrand populist drawing crowds of up to 2,000 that she has found deep within herself of late.

Exactly right.  HRC started out as the establishment, competent-to-govern and not rock the boat candidate, and due to Obama’s surge, she moved very, very quickly to an almost Huey Long-like stature.

This is exactly that complaint that many of us had of Hillary going in, that she changes her persona and tactic to whatever she thinks will best serve her tactics, and to hell with whatever she promises.  Unfortunately, her hardcore base wants to put a woman in the Oval Office so badly, they’re willing to overlook it all, the racism, the empty promises, the thuggish campaign tactics.

If this whole campaign had gone the way Clinton and Mark Penn had mapped it out, we’d be seeing HRC as the centrist hawk she is, instead of this cobbled together mess of populism and spite we’re seeing now. 

She’s poisoned the well and now we all have to some how detoxify it.

Report this

By cyrena, May 21, 2008 at 3:59 am Link to this comment

Interesting thought there tim jones. I hadn’t really considered that myself, but I have a feeling that things would be far different, and Hill wouldn’t like it much.

On the EXTREMELY FORTUNATE side though, the majority of us 300 million can finally, finally, finally, see a tiny prick of light at the end of the tunnel. I mean, these last 8 years of complete Fascism have so truely taken their toll on us all, including the dummies who don’t know it.

But if this many Americans have FINALLY realized it, and made the change on their own, knowing that our collective survival depends on it, then I have no doubts about Obama winning the General Election.

Osgoth pointed out some concerns about those Hillary supporters who would maintain their bitterness (and obvious racism) and vote instead for McCain, despite the fact that the continuation of the fascism can only spell the final blow for us all.

(or anyone who couldn’t escape in time).

Report this
psmealey's avatar

By psmealey, May 21, 2008 at 3:56 am Link to this comment

Obama is “extreme radical left”.  You’re funny.  Where can I catch your stand-up routine in my area?

Report this

By cyrena, May 21, 2008 at 3:46 am Link to this comment

•  “I honestly was hoping Hillary could pull out a double victory in both Kentucky and Oregon; sadly it was not the case.”

Obviously, this is relevant only to you and maybe three others heather. It’s not the LEAST bit sad that Hillary LOST AGAIN, because a ‘win’ for Hillary and the other 2 or 3 of you would represent a HUGE LOSS for the other 300 million of us.
On this:

•  “Once again the extreme radical left will get their candidate nominated; Obama has extreme left positions on abortion, foreign policy and guns.”

You’re JOKING, right? I mean, is this part of your trade mark or something? You tell jokes, or just spread total falsehoods?

Enlighten us…when exactly has the ‘extreme radical left’ (as if there even is such a thing) managed to get their candidate elected? Can you give us some examples of an extreme left candidate? “Once again” an extreme left candidate?

Barack Obama doesn’t come even close to ‘extreme left.” How extremely left is it for him to uphold the constitution on abortion? The constitution says women have a right to choose to have an abortion if they have need for that, and Obama agrees with the Constitution. Please tell us how that is an ‘extremely left’ position.

On guns, Obama thinks that we should return to some standard of gun control that would require background checks before crazies like the one who shot up all of those kids at Virginia Tech could get their hands on guns. And, you think that’s ‘extremely left?’

I don’t even wanna know what you call ‘extremely left’ about his foreign policy, that would use diplomacy and an adherence to international law and treaties instead of just bombing the rest of the world when they have something that we need. But hey, why don’t you give it a shot anyway heather the trademark.

In all sincerity, it sounds to me like YOU’RE the only one who’s EXTREMELY LEFT…like out of your flippin’ MIND!! Seriously…YOU are SCARY!

I know things are rough these days, and that there’s this Alzheimer’s epidemic and all going on. But thank God (as I can see from these threads that I’ve been reading a long time now) you crazies are still far and few between. Whew!! You’re enough to give somebody a heart attack.

Meantime, here’s a link from MSM, for those of us that have weathered the storm. More challenges ahead, (as you can see from the fact that there are still a number of folks in the ideological rabbit hole) but I’m grateful to note that most Americans still seem to have their wits about them. I hate that we had to suffer these past 8 years in order to come to our collective senses, but at least there’s some hope on the horizon now.

Obama Says He Has Majority of Elected Delegates
  NBC News and MSNBC
  Tuesday 20 May 2008

He and Clinton split Oregon, Kentucky primaries; Obama focuses on McCain.

  Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton split the Oregon and Kentucky primaries Tuesday night, NBC News projected. Obama proclaimed that he had won “an absolute majority” of elected Democratic delegates and was “within reach” of the Democratic presidential nomination.

  Clinton, of New York, coasted to victory in Kentucky, while Obama, of Illinois, handily won in Oregon. The results all but ensured that Obama would claim the largest share of the delegates elected in the long primary and caucus and season.

    Obama’s campaign touted the milestone as a big step toward ending the epic nomination battle.

  “This is about delegates,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., an Obama supporter, said in an interview with MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann. “I think it’s significant.

More at the link, including an excellent photo.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/052008F.shtml

Report this

By Ostrogoth, May 21, 2008 at 3:26 am Link to this comment

Looks like Obama will take Oregon by almost 20 points. The numbers were clear after Obama’s win in North Carolina; he has won the nomination fair and square. Hilary can win the nomination only by getting the DNC or superdelegates to override the voters’ choice: a Democratic Party equivalent of the Bush putsch in 2000, with results that would be every bit as catastrophic for our country. Hilary and her supporters now must choose between doing the right thing for their country or continuing to feed their insatiable egos.

If she had won a majority of votes I would respect her win. But she didn’t. She lost. Time for her and her supporters to show a little decency, the decency she refused to show when she voted to murder millions of innocents in Iraq and Iran, based on lies. Oh, but my politics are showing, shame on me. It’s just that mass-murderers and war criminals rub me the wrong way.

I hope I’m wrong about this, but I predict that Hilary will remain true to form and show no decency or grace in defeat. She and her supporters will fight to the end to sabotage the popular will and their party. Will they vote for McCain unless we bow to their fascist egomania, like we bowed to the Republican theft of the 2000 elections? I don’t doubt it for a second, but black-mail, like mass murder and war crimes, also rubs me the wrong way. Should we be gracious to them while they continue their efforts to steal the nomination? Fat chance. Time for us to fight back, after seven years of nonstop lies and crimes against humanity.

Will the voters choose McCain’s fascism over Obama’s centrist politics in the general elections? Perhaps. But remember, the voters were smart enough to reject Wanker in 2000. It’s not too much to hope for a restoration of some sanity and decency to US politics.

Report this

By Heather™, May 21, 2008 at 12:28 am Link to this comment

I honestly was hoping Hillary could pull out a double victory in both Kentucky and Oregon; sadly it was not the case.

Unfortunately Obama for better or worse will be the Democratic nominee. Once again the extreme radical left will get their candidate nominated; Obama has extreme left positions on abortion, foreign policy and guns. With Obama’s “elitist” label how is he going to garner mainstream appeal in the general election? For example in his stump speech where he intimated an unwanted pregnancy as a “punishment” how is he going to reconcile that to the mainstream position on abortion? How is he going to meld his view of on under $50,000 a year wage earners clinging to “guns and religion” speech he made to left wing radicals in San Francisco? How will he mend fences with the female vote, especially female Hillary supporters that plan on not voting for him or even voting McCain as an anti Obama protest vote?

Obama has a difficult road ahead of him. One warning signal I see is the fact that for several weeks in head to head polls between Obama and McCain both have been in a statistical dead heat, one would think that with events in the Democrats favor Obama should be up at least 15 points in head to head polls, yet such is not the case at present.

Another reason McCain may be difficult for Obama is that McCain is not the typical Republican Conservative, he is a maverick that occasionally crosses party lines which is especially appealing to Independents. McCain has a long resume in the Senate and authored many senate bills. This is not to say that McCain does not have flaws as well, he does and if Obama is to win in the general he will need to expose them. McCain is a war hero former Vietnam POW highly decorated speaks of foreign policy, war and patriotism with authority and credibility, on the other hand you have Obama speaking of patriotism that for a while refused to wear a flag pin until recently even though i readily admit it may be trivial look at the stark contrast.

In my heart and soul I honestly believe Hillary would have had a better chance to defeat McCain, unfortunately we will never have an answer to that how can you prove a negative? At the end of the day we are left with Obama versus McCain.

Report this

By jackpine savage, May 20, 2008 at 8:26 pm Link to this comment

Sen Clinton’s recent wins are certainly showing something; however, we can’t be so sure that she holds dominion over all the rural white vote.  Sen Obama has done fairly well to better than expected with that demographic on a number of occasions.

Sen Clinton’s big wins of late are all clustered in a definite, geographic grouping.  Obama - assuming the nomination - will have some work to do in there; moreover, McCain will have a natural advantage.

It was probably best for him to stay mostly away.  He avoided fireworks and disappointment.  If/when he campaigns there for the GE, he won’t have to overcome any nomination campaign aftertastes. 

But you can bet your last progressive dollar that he’s going to pick a running mate that the Left won’t be all that happy with.  And you can go double or nothing that whoever that white male that leans right (war hero optional, but a big bonus) is will be spending a lot of time in Appalachia.

Of course, if the Democrats used winner take all, Clinton would already be the nominee…and she wouldn’t be the firebrand populist drawing crowds of up to 2,000 that she has found deep within herself of late.

Report this

By TheRealFish, May 20, 2008 at 8:06 pm Link to this comment

And, along that thread of logic, and being a Michigan resident, I wonder why it is that Sen. Clinton objected/obstructed Sen. Obama’s initial recommendation for a re-vote here:

His stance? Re-vote. Toss out the earlier results entirely, let everyone come back and do it again. Re-vote.

Her stance? No way. Take the votes as they stand, Clinton, uncommitted, and any Democrats that cross-over to mischief vote because they didn’t have a name to place their check next to. Only let those who didn’t vote “re” vote (actually, just a “vote” that way, correct?).

I wonder why she would fear the complete mulligan? You know—letting all people be able to speak about whom they wish to support?

True, there was no name for me to place my check mark for, I stayed home, and her plan would allow me to vote. Sadly, for her, my vote would not go in her direction.

Sincerely, 55 year old hard working white male supporter for Obama.

Report this

By denotsKO, May 20, 2008 at 8:05 pm Link to this comment

Obviously uneducated white people (read: ignorant hillbillies) are blind to gender, if not race. I am from one of those areas where Clinton dominated, and it is a boobie prize in every sense of the word. Obama shouldn’t lose any sleep over the Uncle-Daddy inbred vote.

Report this

By tim jones, May 20, 2008 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I would like to see a pole on going back to the first Super Tuesday.
Now that more of the country know who Obama is i would love to know how many people that original vote was for Hillary would have voted for Obama now that they now who he is and what he is about.

Report this

By James, May 20, 2008 at 6:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Do we really want a presidential candidate who only seems to appeal to uneducated white people and old women. Has anyone notices that educated white people are voting for Obama. Do you know why?  I’ll yell you. It is because educated people don’t look at the candidates in terms of color or gender. They look at the person. Obama is clearly the best PERSON to run for the White House.

Report this

By Sean Egan, May 20, 2008 at 6:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Actually Hillary Clinton has won the majority of all demographic groups in Kentucky and has strengthened her support among her core constituancy as well.  She is exposing Obama’s weakness.

Report this

By T, May 20, 2008 at 6:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Kentucky represents a small fraction of the country.

Kentucky does not speak for the country.

I’m so tired of Hillary. She’s been nothing but exhausting to the Democratic party she so loves.  She’s been like thorn on ones side or pimple on your but that just won’t go away.

I’m voting in November and want Obama on the ticket!!

Signed,
Latino, Female, mid 30’s, married to a black man with bi-racial children.  smile

Report this

By Louise, May 20, 2008 at 6:02 pm Link to this comment

Hmmm, I guess Hillary was right. The uneducated White voters do prefer her, just like they prefered Bush.

Something to be prowd of ... I suppose. wink

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook